Communications of the ACM
APL: An Interactive Approach
Improved security in APL applications packages
APL '74 Proceedings of the sixth international conference on APL
An interpreter for "Iverson notation"
An interpreter for "Iverson notation"
An apl machine
Verification of apl-programs.
A programming language
Structured programming
APL '89 Conference proceedings on APL as a tool of thought
Extending APL2 to include program control structures
APL '93 Proceedings of the international conference on APL
Hardware assists for high performance computing using a mathematics of arrays
FPGA '95 Proceedings of the 1995 ACM third international symposium on Field-programmable gate arrays
Recursive data structures in APL
Communications of the ACM
Communications of the ACM
Carrier arrays: an idiom-preserving extension to APL
POPL '81 Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages
Some notes on handling errors in APL
ACM SIGAPL APL Quote Quad
The use and disuse of APL: An empirical study
APL '82 Proceedings of the international conference on APL
APL '82 Proceedings of the international conference on APL
“Extension of APL to tree-structured information”
APL '76 Proceedings of the eighth international conference on APL
Adding a modern control structure to APL without changing the syntax
APL '76 Proceedings of the eighth international conference on APL
On the locus of program flow within and among secondary functions
APL '79 Proceedings of the international conference on APL: part 1
| Hi-index | 0.03 |
Throughout history, every time a new idea has come along there have been many people quick to criticize it. As often as not, such criticism has come from detractors of the idea, and has been motivated by its threat to older, more established beliefs. The Biblical prophets, Socrates, Jesus, Copernicus, Galileo, Pasteur, Marx, Darwin, Stravinsky, and countless others, all experienced resistance to their ideas for essentially emotional rather than intellectual reasons. From its early days as “Iverson Notation” through its more recent development, APL has been the target of heated discussion. This paper is a criticism of APL, but I believe, different from others. I am not a detractor of APL; in fact, I have been a supporter, developer, and promoter of the language for quite some time. Therefore, the intention of this review is not to suggest that since APL has faults it is worthless. To the contrary, I hope that these comments will lead to further improvements of APL and perhaps suggest some of the directions to consider in the development of its successors. This paper could not have been written much earlier. It is because APL has come of age, both in the theoretical domain and in the commercial world, that it is possible to look at it publicly with a critical eye. The discussion that follows is written for the APL community, present and future. My wish is that APL “believers” will accept this analysis in the constructive spirit in which it is offered, and that those who still do not appreciate the beauty, elegance, and practical power of APL will not take these comments out of the context in which they are presented.